Undo Poietic edit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the transaction model and the caveat about poietic_set_attributes with N attributes, which is valuable beyond what the schema or name provides. It could additionally state what happens when there is no edit to undo, but the core behavioral nuance is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and adds a concise clarifying note. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbiage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it explains the action, the transaction unit, and the relevant edge case. It could mention no-op behavior if no prior edit exists, but this is not a critical gap for selecting and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional parameter 'design' is already fully described in the schema, and the description adds no extra parameter-level detail. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Undo the last edit transaction') and a clear resource ('the design'). It also clarifies undo granularity, distinguishing it from the other edit tools and from redo.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: after an edit, with the note that one undo corresponds to one edit tool call. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name poietic_redo as the inverse alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.